Case Digest (G.R. No. 179127)
Facts:
In Bonifacio Communications Corporation and Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. National Telecommunications Commission, Innove Communications, Inc. and Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation (G.R. No. 201944, April 19, 2023), petitioners BCC and PLDT challenged two NTC orders dated October 28, 2008 and October 26, 2010 directing them to comply with NTC Memorandum Circular No. 05-05-2002, which declared Bonifacio Global City (BGC) a free zone where any duly enfranchised public telecommunications entity may provide high-speed networks and connectivity. BCC, initially capitalized by BCDA, FBDC and Smart Communications, held infrastructure and value-added services rights under a Shareholders’ Agreement and a Memorandum of Agreement with FBDC, later operated by PLDT after its acquisition of SCI and FBDC shares. In September 2007, Innove secured building permission to install facilities in BGC, inadvertently removing BCC’s conduit. Innove then filed NTC Case No. 2008-236, seCase Digest (G.R. No. 179127)
Facts:
- Formation and Agreements
- On October 16, 1997, BCDA, FBDC, and Smart Communications, Inc. (SCI) formed Bonifacio Communications Corporation (BCC).
- A Shareholders’ Agreement and a subsequent MOA granted BCC “the exclusive right to install, construct, own and maintain all necessary Communication Infrastructure” and provide related services, including Value-Added Services (VAS), within Bonifacio Global City (BGC).
- By 2002, PLDT had acquired SCI’s and FBDC’s shares, owning 75% of BCC.
- Regulatory Framework and Dispute Trigger
- On May 13, 2002, NTC issued Memorandum Circular No. 05-05-2002 declaring BGC a “free zone” where any duly enfranchised public telecommunications entity (PTE) may provide high-speed networks.
- In September 2007, Innove Communications, Inc. was engaged to install fiber facilities in BGC’s e-Square buildings; its contractor removed BCC’s conduit and laid Innove’s fiber after building-owner consent.
- Innove and Globe sought NTC/DOJ guidance on BCC’s claimed exclusivity. DOJ Opinion No. 22-08 (2008) advised that no carrier can claim exclusivity under the Constitution (Art. XII, Sec. 11) or contracts contrary to public policy.
- Administrative and Court Proceedings
- On September 12, 2008, Innove filed NTC Case No. 2008-236, praying for affirmation of MC 05-05-02, a cease-and-desist order (C&D) against BCC/PLDT/FBDC, and enforcement of Innove’s authorizations.
- BCC and PLDT answered, contesting NTC’s jurisdiction and the validity of private agreements, and filed separate civil suits in RTC Pasig (Taguig) and RTC Quezon City.
- On October 28, 2008, NTC issued a C&D order directing petitioners to comply with MC 05-05-02 and to desist from obstructing Innove’s services; on October 26, 2010, it denied reconsideration.
- Court of Appeals and Supreme Court Filings
- BCC/PLDT petitioned the CA for certiorari under Rule 65; on August 16, 2011, the CA denied the petition, affirming NTC’s orders and holding NTC had jurisdiction over BCC as a VAS provider or by concert with PLDT.
- On May 18, 2012, the CA denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
- BCC/PLDT filed this Rule 45 petition before the Supreme Court, challenging CA’s ruling on jurisdiction, validity of C&D, due process, and asserting no forum shopping.
Issues:
- Did the CA correctly hold that NTC has jurisdiction over BCC?
- Did the CA correctly affirm the NTC orders directing compliance with MC 05-05-02 and issuance of the C&D?
- Were petitioners deprived of due process by alleged NTC prejudgment based on its DOJ letter?
- Did petitioners commit forum shopping by filing parallel suits in regular courts?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)